Archive for May, 2010

h1

Flexibility in Bahai Law in relation to homosexuality

May 19, 2010

The following is a response to a thread on the Bahai Planet forum called “AIDS Faith conference” where the intitial poster was curious to know if there had been any Bahai statements on AIDS and the loss of life due to this. The discussion quickly turned to the rights and wrongs of homosexuality. I stepped later on in the discussion and the following is one of my posts.

I’m posting it here because although the forum is open and you can read material as a guest, I wanted a place where I could make links to some of the material here. I’ve changed the individual’s name to SS.

What Sonja posted on this discussion thread on 3rd May 2010
SS wrote: “With all due respect this is just a red herring. You conveniently left out that the House of Justice cannot make any changes in the teachings of any of its predecessors. The teachings on homosexuality are pretty clear.”

Abdu’l-Baha wrote they can change what previous Houses of Justice have decided:
“It is incumbent upon these members (of the Universal House of Justice) to gather in a certain place and deliberate upon all problems which have caused difference, questions that are obscure and matters that are not expressly recorded in the Book.
Whatsoever they decide has the same effect as the Text itself. Inasmuch as the House of Justice hath power to enact laws that are not expressly recorded in the Book and bear upon daily transactions, so also it hath power to repeal the same.
Thus for example, the House of Justice enacteth today a certain law and enforceth it, and a hundred years hence, circumstances having profoundly changed and the conditions having altered, another House of Justice will then have power, according to the exigencies of the time, to alter that law.
This it can do because these laws form no part of the divine explicit Text. The House of Justice is both the initiator and the abrogator of its own laws.”

(Abdu’l-Baha, The Will and Testament, p. 20)

In this passage in the Will and Testament, “daily transactions” or mu’aamaalat (the term Abdul-Baha uses here) is a category used in Islamic law, variously translated as social transactions, interractions between people, mutual dealings, mundane matters. It includes:

* Financial transactions
* Endowments
* Laws of inheritance
* Marriage, divorce, and child care
* Foods and drinks (including ritual slaughtering and hunting)
* Penal punishments
* Warfare and peace
* Judicial matters (including witnesses and forms of evidence)
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shariah)

Abdu’l-Baha also wrote a tablet about the wisdom of assigning such matters to the Universal House of Justice, rather than having them laid down in scripture, which is printed in “Amr wa Khalq” volume 4, from page 298. http://reference.bahai.org/fa/t/c/AK4/ak4-302.html

On pages 301-2 Abdu’l-Baha wrote:
(provisional translation from Persian by Sen McGlinn)

“As for marriage, this falls entirely within the social laws. Nevertheless, the preconditions are found in the Law of God, and its fundamentals are evident. The union of relatives, however, is not explicitly treated, and is referred to the House of Justice, which will give a ruling in accordance with social customs and medical requirements, wisdom, and suitability for human nature. According to social and medical principles, and nature, there is no doubt that, in marriage, distance is nearer than nearness.
In this light, consider the Christian religious law. Although marriage to relatives is in reality permitted, since there is no explicit impediment in the Text, the early Christian councils entirely forbade marriages between relatives, to the seventh degree, and today this is enforced in all the Christian churches, since this is purely a social question.
In short, whatever ruling the House of Justice makes on this question, that is in truth the decisive decree, it is God’s sharp sword. No one may deviate from it. If you consider, it will be apparent how much this rule (that is, referring social laws to the House of Justice) is consistent with wisdom. For whenever a difficulty may arise and a local decision is required, at that point, since the House of Justice delivered the previous ruling, the secondary House of Justice, can issue a new national ruling on a national case and topic, in the light of local imperatives. To entirely avoid any risks, the rulings that the House of Justice has made, it can also abrogate.”

If by: “predecessors”, you mean the Bahai Scripture cannot be changed, I agree.

Bahai scripture is what is penned by Baha’u’llah, interpreted and elaborated on by Abdul-Baha, and then when Shoghi Effendi wrote himself as interpretator of the writings of Baha’u’llah + Abdul-Baha. The Bab’s Writings are important but are not strictly Bahai Scripture. None of these writings (as far as I know) include anything about homosexuality, let alone about the question of whether married homosexuals can be accepted in the Bahai community.

I am sorry, if it sounds as if I am beating a drum here, but I repeat this only because your response indicates that you didn’t notice in my earlier post how I showed that letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi are not part of Bahai Scripture. I am not suggesting that they are not relevant nor that they are not important for Bahais, because they are not part of Bahai Scripture. I’m saying that they have another role. I can back up my statements here with many more examples and I hope what is below is sufficient to show you what I mean. If you disagree, please show me how the letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi can be part of Bahai Scripture.

However if we did take the letters written by the Guardian’s secretaries to be equivalent to authoritative interpretations Bahai Scripture, how would we deal with the secretary’s letter that states that “this is the day which will not be followed by the night” (a prophecy of Baha’u’llah, in “The Summons of the Lord of Hosts”, p. 34) as meaning that it refers to a never-ending line of Guardians.
“The Guardians are the evidence…” The full letter is here >>
(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer, November 25, 1948: Bahai News, No. 232, p. 8, June 1950) also in Directives from the Guardian, p. 34)

Or how could we deal with letter from a secretary written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, which states “He (the Guardian) does not feel that the friends should make a practice of saying grace or of teaching it to children. This is not part of the Bahai Faith, but a Christian practice,…” – when in fact it is ordained by Baha’u’llah, and Abdu’l-Baha said grace himself and gave us a number of prayers to use for the purpose (and Shoghi Effendi also said grace himself, at least sometimes)
This letter (27 September 1947) is quoted in full near the bottom of this page.

Or another letter by a secretary which states: “Regarding your question whether there is any special ceremony which the believers should perform when they wish to “name” a baby; the Teachings do not provide for any ceremony whatever on such occasions. We have no “baptismal service” in the Cause, …”, when in fact Abdu’l-Baha has given us a form for the “spiritual baptism” of a newborn child, in Tablets of Abdu’l-Baha pp 149-50.
This letter (December 20th, 1938, Arohanui: Letters from Shoghi Effendi to New Zealand, p.47) can be found here.

Or a letter from a secretary that states “The words Israel, used throughout the Bible, simply refers to the Jewish people, and not to the Chosen ones of this day.” (From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer, April 21, 1939; Lights of Guidance, p. 498)

Whereas the Guardian wrote: “Turning to Bah’u’llah and repeating his request, he was honored by a Tablet, in which Israel and his children were identified with the Bab and His followers respectively…” (God Passes By, p. 116)

Or the letter that states:
“In regard to the question as to whether people ought to kill animals for food or not, there is no explicit statement in the Bahai Sacred Scriptures (as far as I know) in favour or against it.” (9 July 1931)

Is this expressing the Guardian’s limited knowledge, or the secretary’s? There are tablets from Abdu’l-Baha [and Baha’u’llah] on this topic. The letter goes on:
“It is certain, however, that if man can live on a purely vegetarian diet and thus avoid killing animals, it would be much preferable….”

If we take this as the Guardian speaking as interpreter, he is offering an interpretion on something which he himself thinks is not in the Writings – and therefore is in the province of the UHJ not the Guardian. Shoghi Effendi wrote in the “Dispensation of Baha’u’llah” that the role of the Guardian is to interprete what is in the Bahai Writings, while the role of the Universal House of Justice is to legislate on all other matters.

Then the next sentence says
“This is, however, a very controversial question and the Bahais are free to express their views on it.”

– so the writer (the secretary in my opinion) does not think this defines Bahai belief. But aren’t the authoritative interpretations of the Guardian supposed to do that?
(The letter is in The Compilation of Compilations vol. I, p. 475)

All this is not to suggest that the Guardian’s letters can be disregarded. That would be just as simplistic as supposing that all these letters are the words of Shoghi Effendi.

Shoghi Effendi himself wanted the Bahais to make a clear distinction between his writings and those written by his secretaries:
“Although the secretaries of the Guardian convey his thoughts and instructions and these messages are authoritative, their words are in no sense the same as his, their style certainly not the same, and their authority less, for they use their own terms and not his exact words in conveying his messages.” (Unfolding Destiny, p.260 () )

If these letters had doctrinal authority, it would not make much sense to say they had `less authority.’ and I’ve already elaborated on what I mean by this in this thread, but if you missed this you can read it here.

I’ve chosen examples of letters where I would think at least some of you might see that it could be illogical to accept the letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi as if they were part of Bahai Scripture.
But I think the practice of a Bahai community is also important, and it seems to me that some Bahais treat some letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi as these as if they were Bahai Scripture, while ignoring other letters.

The following letter which in the context of 1935 when it was written might not have been such an unusual view, is clearly ignored by most Bahais today, myself included.
For those of you who are not married, think of large Catholic families (who sooner or later must as my parents did after their 9th child, practice some form of contraception given that now children tend to survive birth). Then think of the Bahai families around you. You don’t need to pry into anyone’s private life to realise that if a couple are not having a child every few years throughout their marriage, some form birth control is being used.

“…the Bahai Teachings, when carefully studied imply that such current conceptions like birth control, if not necessarily wrong and immoral in principle, have nevertheless to be discarded as constituting a real danger to the very foundations of our social life.”
(October 14, 1935)

If you wish to treat the letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi as if this is Bahai Scripture, as an individual you are free to do so, but I hope that I’ve shown that the letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi are not part of Bahai Sacred Scripture. And that in examples above, have shown that not all letters are followed by Bahais in practice.

SS wrote: “As for the quote you used. Some how I do not think Shoghi Effendi’s understanding of what is progressive is yours. Combine this with what The Guardian wrote regarding homosexuality it is highly doubtful that he saw this topic in the same way as you do.”

You are referring to letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, not Shoghi Effendi’s own writing. If something I’ve written above is not clear in explaining this, just ask.

SS wrote: “As for equality that too is misguided. No person is denied any privilege or opportunity in the Faith that any other person enjoys. All can marry with in the laws of the Faith or choose not to.”

A gay Bahai friend of mine had two Bahais who were to be witnesses and so he was planning to have a Bahai marriage ceremony, except that his parents refused to give permission. So he went ahead and had only a state marriage instead and his voting rights were taken off him by the NSA of the USA for these reasons: ‘same sex marriage’ and his “support of homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle for Bahais” and not because he didn’t have his parents permission.
Two Bahais wanted to marry, but the man’s parents who were Moslims wouldn’t give permission. This couple tried again and again, year after year, living together now, and finally the parents gave permission when their first child was about to be born.
Two Bahais lived together, had a child, and then 2-3 years later parted company.

The gay friend I mentioned above has been trying to get acceptance from his parents for over 15 years for his partner, and in Brazil years earlier they had a state marriage. So technically he didn’t need another state marriage but wanted to have it in his state while it was possible.
The heterosexual couples I mentioned above, all people I knew well, were always welcomed at all Bahai events, and because of this atmosphere remained actively involved in the community.

I’m not suggesting that Bahais should have double standards but in the stories above, tolerance was given to the heterosexual couples and not given to the gay couple. I realise this is just a story of 3 couples. So I’ll add one more story:
Shoghi Effendi, at times would go to Switzerland for short breaks and one of his closest friends there was the painter Mark Tobey, who was known in his circles as a homosexual. Whether or not Mark was celibate is not the issue and it is not the issue in regards to discussion of same-sex marriage either.
The issue is a lifestyle where having a partner is being denied. Mark lived for decades with a friend, caring for him as he wrote himself, and was a member of his local spiritual assembly for long periods of time. There is no evidence to suggest that Mark Tobey was ever admonished in any form, let alone any indication that he might lose his voting rights. In fact to the contrary, it seems that he was accepted as a part of his community and from what I know of his exchanges with Shoghi Effendi, Shoghi Effendi valued their friendship. If Shoghi Effendi had such an abhorance of homosexuality, then surely it would be “highly doubtful” that he would maintain this friendship. Particularly when you think this is in the 1930-50s. Shoghi Effendi’s actions don’t indicate any prejudice or intolerance.

SS wrote: “As for this nonsense of the laws of nature??? It is the very laws from God that attempt to enable us to rise above the laws of nature while correctly defining just what is natural and what is not. It is clear just how the Faith see homosexuality. I think the Faith see It is immoral and not part of our natural reality. To my thinking this makes it a perversion of nature.”

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. Actions are moral or immoral.
Is a heterosexual still a heterosexual if they never have sex? or never marry? Of course they are.

You might be thinking of this statement by the Universal House of Justice:
“…the Baha’i Faith strongly condemns all blatant acts of immorality, and it includes among them the expression of sexual love between individuals of the same sex.” (Printed in The American Baha’i (Qawl 152/November 23, 1995) and to be found here)

It also states: “To regard homosexuals with prejudice and disdain would be entirely against the spirit of Baha’i Teachings.”

It seems to me, here in the letter the Universal House of Justice is condemning any expression of sexual love while you have taken this a step further to condemn homosexuality. Your logic here doesn’t surprise me. There are many examples in the history of humanity where people have taken things from religion then made that issue into an argument for their own to arguments about what is immoral as a basis for their prejudice.

Some of you wonder why I bother, and in particular bother examining what is in the Bahai Writings.
SS’s statements above are often what I hear from Bahais, they conclude based on the current Bahai policy that homosexuals must remain celibate, that then homosexuals are lesser and from this prejudice rises its ugly head. And worse, not only are gays rejected from the Bahai community but even Bahais such as myself who want to see, “Is there a way for gays not to be rejected?” “Is there a way for a Bahai community to accept a married gay couple into their community?”, are told to go elsewhere or that I shouldn’t speak.

SS wrote: “You may not agree and that is your choice and right. And thank God for our choices and rights. But if you insist on attempting to whine about how unfair the Faith is about this at least be truthful about just what the Faith teaches and how it really works.”

Yes, my perspective is different to yours and I try to back up my statements with quotations from the Bahai Writings as much as I can to try and be “truthful about just what the Faith teaches and how it really works.”. Where are my examples of ‘whining’ in doing this?

SS wrote: “You are always free to start your own version of the Faith that embraces all the current PC stuff about being progressive. But when that happens it does not seem to work out to well.”

It seems from your comments above that you think the Bahai Faith cannot match science with religion. Or that the Faith can’t hold up its head in a world where values such as equality for all dominate. I hope I have misunderstood you here. My view is the the Bahai Faith is not only more than capable to operate in a world where equality dominates but has something to offer that world too.

SS wrote: “Or if you are not a Baha’i you are free not to join the Cause. No one is forcing you or twisting your arm to be a Baha’i. I find it interesting that you insist on trying to twist mine? But that is the nature of being a so called progressive in this culture. One losses oneself to vile accusations while pretending to be tolerant. That my friend is call hypocrisy. Agree or not agree at least the Faith is not hypocritical. And in this day and age that is most distinctive.”

Your comment above, strikes me as like child in the playground who says, ‘you can’t play here, go find some other friends to play with.’

If you don’t like my comments, don’t respond, but don’t say as a Bahai I do not have a right (for me it is an obligation) to investigate the Bahai Writings on this topic to try and to share my findings, as an individual. It would be hypocritical to say, Bahais have the principle of independent investigation, which stops the moment you declare yourself to be a Bahai. At least I know this is certainly not the case for myself. I am inspired and in awe of how studying the Bahai Writings seems to be a never ending process of discovery and development for me.

h1

The Universal House of Justice membership and related topics

May 1, 2010
Detail of the "Chronological Membership of the Universal House of Justice" from www.bahairants.com

Detail of a graph at the bottom of Baquia’s blog: Universal House of Justice: Results of By-Election

Bahai Rants” began in December 2004 and I wrote a summary about the Bahai Rants blog here.

In March 2010 Baquia wrote a blog in response to two new members being elected to the Universal House of Justice and noted that both had been previously members of the International Teaching Centre, to which they had been appointed to by the UHJ itself.
B’s statement:
“The most important trend is that we have, since 2008, a membership drawn completely from the ITC – which itself is appointed by the Universal House of Justice. So in essence, there is a closed loop with the UHJ appointing its future candidates”
is supported by a graph showing the history of the membership of the Universal House of Justice, a detail of which is above. The orange sections indicate the individuals who were previously members of the ITC.

Below are a few of my comments that I posted on Bahai rants. Each post has a link back to its location on Bahai rants, should you wish to read the other responses surrounding this and you can make your response there.
Responses here are moderated, mainly for practical reasons: I couldn’t cope the traffic that the Bahai Rants blog has. Also my purpose on the blog is just to have a reference for my own responses on particular topics. I am not looking at creating a forum or community. So if you wish to be 100% sure your response is aired, then post it on Bahai Rants. Posting it on Bahai Rants means I’m likely to find it there and even better, you would have the bonus of feedback from the diversity of a community.

Sonja’s comment posted on 2 April 2010
So L, I’m one of “the rest of the Bahais” [you refer to] and I’m all for nuance, diversity, open debate, change, and going to the source of the Writings (as much as is possible and in ways which will always involve flexibility and change) till the day I drop.

In a nutshell, what I think we lost with not having the guardianship, is flexibility. Look at Shoghi Effendi’s own writings, how one of his main missions seemed to be to limit and to spread power.
Getting back Baquia’s original blog here, I think one of the problems of the elected becoming more and more, it seems, a consequence of being appointed is a loss of flexibility that comes with new blood and differing views. Locally, what is happening is that now individuals appointed by the NSA or by cluster things or by the Ruhi system, are managing things where previously elected bodies such as the LSAs did this. I haven’t done my homework on this, so it would be good hear from others of their experiences on this change from the elected to the appointed at local community levels.

And finally, when the first UHJ was to be elected, the Hands of the Cause (who had been appointed) informed everyone that they were not eligible for election, thus keeping in the spirit of openenss and new blood. The UHJ could easily announce that members of the ITC cannot be elected onto the UHJ if they wanted to. It could help keep a balance of the appointed and the elected distinctive. A feature I think Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi intended.

Sonja’s comment posted on 4 April 2010
I wrote: “The UHJ could easily announce that members of the ITC cannot be elected onto the UHJ if they wanted to. It could help keep a balance of the appointed and the elected distinctive.
A feature I think Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi intended.”

L wrote: “Interesting idea could you support it?”

My response: The differences between the appointed and elected institutions, and ways they complement each other, have been worked out in many UHJ messages, but they derive ultimately from the fact the Will and Testament refers to both the Guardianship and the Hands (appointed), and the Houses of Justice (elected). That already indicated a complementary relationship with different roles, which Shoghi Effendi then detailed in his World Order letters.
For example:
“It must be also clearly understood by every believer that the institution of Guardianship does not under any circumstances abrogate, or even in the slightest degree detract from, the powers granted to the Universal House of Justice by Bahá’u’lláh in the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, and repeatedly and solemnly confirmed by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in His Will. It does not constitute in any manner a contradiction to the Will and Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, nor does it nullify any of His revealed instructions. It enhances the prestige of that exalted assembly, stabilizes its supreme position, safeguards its unity, assures the continuity of its labors, without presuming in the slightest to infringe upon the inviolability of its clearly-defined sphere of jurisdiction.”
(Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha’u’llah, p. 8 )

“An attempt, I feel, should at the present juncture be made to explain the character and functions of the twin pillars that support this mighty Administrative Structure — the institutions of the Guardianship and of the Universal House of Justice. … these twin institutions of the Administrative Order of Bahá’u’lláh should be regarded as divine in origin, essential in their functions and complementary in their aim and purpose. Their common, their fundamental object is to insure the continuity of that divinely-appointed authority which flows from the Source of our Faith, to safeguard the unity of its followers and to maintain the integrity and flexibility of its teachings. Acting in conjunction with each other these two inseparable institutions administer its affairs, coordinate its activities, promote its interests, execute its laws and defend its subsidiary institutions. Severally, each operates within a clearly defined sphere of jurisdiction; each is equipped with its own attendant institutions — instruments designed for the effective discharge of its particular responsibilities and duties. Each exercises, within the limitations imposed upon it, its powers, its authority, its rights and prerogatives. These are neither contradictory, nor detract in the slightest degree from the position which each of these institutions occupies. Far from being incompatible or mutually destructive, they supplement each other’s authority and functions, and are permanently and fundamentally united in their aims…. ”
(Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha’u’llah, p. 147-8 )


and lots more, see
http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/se/WOB/wob-40.html


L then wrote: “if the master was against the appointed serving on the UJH why did he make the Guardian (an appointed person) a life time member of the UHJ? it seems that he had no problem with a member of the appointed serving on the UHJ. and none of the experts provided suggest otherwise. Im sorry but no where do they say that the appointed should not be elected to the UHJ in these quotes provided. Could you post some that do please?”

my response: I was explaining the principle of having the elected and the appointed as “twin pillars that support this mighty Administrative Structure” (Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha’u’llah, p. 8 ) and in support of this principle, I gave the example of how the Hands of Cause chose not to make themselves available for election to the UHJ. I saw their action as meaning, they saw the need for new blood as a good thing. Perhaps they even thought that being appointed and in the public positions each of them had, that unless they did this, they would have been elected to the UHJ?
Of course, I have no idea what their motive was, all I am saying is that they did this and my suggestion is that if the members of the ITC chose to do this, this would help maintain this principle of having the elected and the appointed as complimentary aspects of the Bahai administration.

L: the source for this is:
“The Hands of the Cause in their message of November 4, 1961, referred to the election of the Universal House of Justice in these terms:
“That all male voting members throughout the Bahá’í world are eligible for election to the Universal House of Justice. The Hands do not limit the freedom of the electors. However, as they have been given the explicit duties of guarding over the security and ensuring the propagation of the Faith, they ask the electors of the House of Justice to leave them free at this time to discharge their duties. When that Supreme and Infallible Body has been elected, it will decide on all matters concerning its own membership.”

(Custodians, Ministry of the Custodians, p. 392)

At the moment what is happening at the highest level of the Bahai administration is that individuals are being appointed by the UHJ to the ITC, and then the males of the ITC are being elected to UHJ. The issue is that membership of the UHJ has become a result of the UHJ chosen appointments. Given that membership on the UHJ is a matter of just 9 members, my suggestion is: if the UHJ decided to make ITC members ineligible or if members of the ITC chose to make themselves ineligible, then surely there are plenty of other males perfectly suitable to serve on the UHJ. That’s my suggestion based on the above thinking. I am not suggesting it is bad to have appointed members of the ITC move to the UHJ, but when since 2008 (see Baquia’s graph) ALL NINE members of the UHJ come from the ITC, then it indicates that the electoral process is not bringing in any new blood. Here’s just one of the many quotations in the Bahai writings on the importance of new blood.

“Upon the local Assemblies, whose special function and high privilege is to facilitate the admission of new believers into the community, and thereby stimulate the infusion of fresh blood into its organic institutions,…”

(Shoghi Effendi, January 30, 1938, Messages to America, p. 11)

Sonja’s comment posted on 5 April 2010
in response to:
Surly you must have some excerpt that supports your claim that Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi did not intend for members of the appointed to serve on the UHJ

L: Please read my posts more carefully, I wrote:
“It could help keep a balance of the appointed and the elected distinctive.
A feature I think Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi intended.”

The second sentence refers to the former sentence, a balance. The point of my responses has been to see how the principle of this balance could work better.

re: your idea that the Guardian was intended to be a member of the UHJ:
Abdu’l-Baha wrote in the Will and Testament:
“By this body [the UHJ] all the difficult problems are to be resolved and the Guardian of the Cause of God is its sacred head and the distinguished member for life of that body. Should he not attend in person its deliberations, he must appoint one to represent him.”
(Abdu’l-Baha, The Will and Testament, p. 14)

From this we can see that the Guardian is not eligible for election (he is appointed), and that he is not just a member of the UHJ, since he can appoint someone else to represent him. It is not stated that the Guardian does not have a vote on the UHJ, but this is implied, first because nothing is said about whether the Guardian’s representative would have a vote, and second because that would mean there are ten votes rather than nine, which would be allow for the possibility of a 5-5 split. I’d say that it’s unlikely that Abdu’l-Baha would discard the symbolism of 9, and raise the possibility of a hung vote, by making the UHJ a ten-member body.

Instead it seems, in preserving this principle of the distinctions of the elected and appointed, the Guardian or his representative who could have been a woman, would not be a member of the UHJ but rather that s/he sat at meetings and participated, and most likely did not have a say in the final decisions that would be made.